As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration.
The submission is original work and does not infringe on any third party’s copyright.
You have obtained permission for any third party material that is used in the submission.
The author(s) submitting the work is/are the actual author(s) of the work, not a third party.
The submission file is in Microsoft Word document file format. Papers will be published in PDF and HTML formats.
The text, if submitted to a peer-reviewed section, has been anonymized. Authors' names have been removed from the text and file name as well as from the document's Properties, which in Microsoft Word is found in the File menu. Any other identifying information, such as institution name, unit, organization or event has been removed or replaced in the manuscript.
The text is single-spaced; does not use columns; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
All URL addresses in the text are activated and ready to click. (e.g., http://pkp.sfu.ca)
The journal is published quarterly, on the 15th of March, June, September, and December. The Editorial Board welcomes submissions throughout the year. The journal aims to provide rapid turnaround for manuscripts requiring peer review (i.e., 3 months) but cannot guarantee publication in a particular issue.
The editors are responsible for final decisions regarding publication and reserve the right to edit for brevity, clarity, and consistency of style.
A final decision to publish or not is made by the appropriate editor after the double blind peer review is completed. The aim is to have papers reviewed within three months of receipt.
All authors should ensure that their user profile includes information on their affiliation and a short biographical statement (position title).
Submissions are welcomed on all areas of evidence based librarianship including:
Application of evidence based librarianship
Collaborative and inter-professional evidence-based practice
Developing and applying evidence based tools
Evidence based practices from other disciplines applicable to library and information practice
Future prospects for the evidenced based information profession
Harnessing evidence to support new innovations
Management and administration issues related to evidence based librarianship
Maximizing the value and impact of information services
Research on education in library and information studies programs
Research tools (statistics, data collection methods, etc.)
Submissions should report on research conducted using rigorous qualitative or quantitative methods, which should be described in appropriate detail as part of the article. Submissions reporting on survey research should include a copy of the data collection instrument as an appendix. Submissions using a case study approach should include a description of how the case study can be generalized to other situations. Submissions should include:
A structured abstract (250-500 words) using the following headings:
Research articles should be written in a formal/academic style using the following headings as appropriate:
Introduction: Background and introduction to the paper and why the work was carried out
Literature Review: An overview of relevant literature, summarising previous work in the area and highlighting the gaps and where this work fits in
Aims: Aims of the paper/research—it is useful to include the research question(s) used to frame the research study
Methods: How the study was conducted – this should provide enough information for someone to replicate the study such as how the data were collected and analyzed.
Results: The main findings from the study should be presented clearly and concisely
Discussion: A discussion of the findings from the study – set in the context of the wider literature or issues arising from the study. Note any problems or limitations with the study and how these could have affected your results and how they could be avoided in future studies
Conclusions: A summary of what was undertaken and what was discovered – this should not contain any new information but rather describe how the aims of the study were achieved.
Research articles may be up to 5000 words in length, excluding reference, tables, figures, and any appendices
Review articles provide a way for librarians to obtain an overview of the evidence on a particular topic, and stay current with the literature. Reviews may take on several different forms, including an overview, systematic review, meta-analysis, literature review, state-of-the-art review, or umbrella review, among others. For a detailed explanation of the types of reviews possible, please consult: Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
EBLIP welcomes review articles on topics of relevance to practitioners in library and information studies. We are particularly interested in reviews which contain information on the state of research on a particular topic. Submissions should include:
ConclusionsA structured abstract (250-500 words) using the following headings:
Review articles should be written in a formal/academic style using the following headings as appropriate:
Introduction: Background and introduction to the paper and why the work was carried out
Aims: Aims/objectives of the paper
Methods: How the review was conducted – this shouldn’t be too descriptive but it should provide enough information for someone to replicate the study
Results: The main findings from the review of the literature on a topic should be presented clearly and concisely
Discussion: A discussion of the findings from your review. Note any problems or limitations with the study and how these could have affected the results and how they could be avoided in future studies
Conclusions: A summary of what was undertaken and what was discovered – including the implications for practice, and any further research needed
Review articles may be up to 10,000 words in length, excluding references, tables, figures, and any appendices
USING EVIDENCE IN PRACTICE
Submissions to this section of EBLIP should be brief reports of library and information practitioners' use of evidence to assist with decision making. Submissions should include:
No abstract is required
The text of the manuscript should outline the following with headings:
Setting: Describe the practice setting where the use of evidence took place. Things to note include type of institution, type of users, environment, country, service currently being offered that you are focusing on
Problem: Describe the problem that arose to make you question the service you were offering. Why did you think there might be a better way to do things?
Evidence: Give an overview of the evidence you used to assist with your decision making. This could be evidence from the research literature or local data you compiled. How was the evidence located or collected? Why was this evidence compelling? What did it tell you and why did you believe it? Why did you use this evidence?
Implementation: Describe how you implemented a change based on the evidence you found. Provide practical details of what it meant to implement this change
Outcome: What was the result of your implemented changes? What impact did the changes have? Were the changes successful or not?
Reflection: Reflect on the process of trying to implement change in your practice by using evidence. Was this a difficult process or fairly straightforward? Did you encounter any obstacles? What would you do differently next time?
Submissions should be approximately 1500 words in length, excluding any references, tables, and figures.
Commentaries are opinion pieces on a topic related to evidence based practice. They should be approximately 1500-3000 words in length.
Evidence Summaries follow a structured format and are written by a team of writers under the direction of the Associate Editor for this section. If you are interested in writing evidence summaries, or would like to suggest a research article to be reviewed, please contact the Associate Editor (Evidence Summaries). Author guidelines for Evidence Summaries are made available by request.
Classic reviews showcase publications that significantly changed library and information practice. Classics often have an enduring legacy even when most contemporary practitioners no longer reference these works specifically. Reviewers should organize their reviews into two major parts: the Abstract and the Commentary as described below. If you are interested in suggesting a research article that should be featured as a Classic, or are interested in writing a Classic review, please contact the Associate Editor (Classics).
Submissions should include:
Abstract. Reviewers should summarize the classic concisely using standard structured abstract headings with the following recommended yet not strictly-enforced word count:
Objective (15-35 words)
Design (1-6 words)
Setting (10-30 words)
Subjects (30-60 words)
Methods (80-170 words)
Main Results (80-200 words)
Conclusions (20-45 words)
Commentary. The reviewer should begin the commentary by providing the context at the time of the publication. This section should describe existing professional practices and any previous research inquiries related to the subject of the classics. Articles should be written in a formal/academic style and attempt to answer the following core questions:
How did this work influence subsequent applied research?
Is there anything that we can learn from the author’s approach that might guide today’s applied research?
Why did this work become a classic?
Classics articles are typically between 1,000 and 2,500 words in length, excluding references, tables, figures, and any appendices
RESEARCH IN PRACTICE
The Research in Practice column is typically written by a columnist. For those interested in submitting as a guest author, please contact the Editor in Chief.
Features appear in select journal issues and feature a theme or conference/symposium. Features typically have one or more guest editors, and include papers in various categories – research articles, review articles, commentaries, and editorials. Features are scheduled in advance and contributors are usually invited directly to submit manuscripts for consideration. For those interested in editing a feature, or suggesting a theme, please contact the Editor in Chief.
News items can be submitted through the online journal system or emailed directly to the Editor in Chief who reserves the right to make final publishing and editorial decisions. Deadlines for including a news item in a particular issue is 30 days prior to the issues publication date (March 15, June 15, September 15, December 15).
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letters can be submitted through the online journal system or emailed directly to the Editor in Chief who will decide whether to publish the letter or respond privately. Letters will only be considered for publication if they are within the scope of the journal and/or relevant to a recent EBLIP publication. Deadlines for including a letter in a particular issue is 30 days prior to the issues publication date (March 15, June 15, September 15, December 15).
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (EBLIP) provides open access to all of its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. In addition to making all articles available, the journal also promotes open data, that is, the availability of research data underpinning research published in the journal.
At EBLIP, we believe that sharing research data advances research and promotes evidence-based library and information practice. Data sharing has several benefits:
Making publicly-funded research data available to all
Encouraging collaboration among researchers
Enabling the reproducibility and verification of data
Optimizing the use and re-use of existing data for further research
Supporting new research questions, investigations, and interpretations of data
Providing transparency in research and safeguarding against misconduct
Authors submitting their research to EBLIP are encouraged to deposit, cite, and link to their data using the following guidelines:
Authors are responsible for ensuring that appropriate ethical considerations and permissions have been obtained prior to depositing the data. If necessary, data should be cleaned to ensure confidentiality of human participants is protected.
Types of data which may be included with the deposit include but are not limited to: raw data, processed data, algorithms, protocols, and software.
Data should be deposited at the time the manuscript is submitted. Data files may be uploaded to the Online Journal System in the Data Set At the time the manuscript is accepted for publication in EBLIP, the editor will deposit the data file in the University of Alberta’s instance of Dataverse and it will be assigned a DOI for use in the citation.
If depositing the data with the journal for hosting internally is not feasible (e.g., if there is a competing requirement from a funding agency), data should be deposited in a public repository and a citation provided including a persistent identifier.
In cases where the data sets are already available in a public repository at the time of manuscript submission, a citation should be provided including a persistent identifier.
Metadata should be included with the deposit. A README file should contain supporting documentation necessary to help with interpretation of the data, e.g., the codebook. Guidelines for creating README files are available from Cornell University and University of Southampton.
The citation should include a DOI and follow the EBLIP Publishing Manual regarding the data citation style. The format adheres to that proposed by the FORCE11 Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles. For example: Author(s). (Year). Dataset title. Data repository or archive, version, DOI.
A data availability statement will be included with the article upon publication. Alternatively, a statement on availability of the data (e.g., through contacting the author or a third party) may be included.
Peer review of the research data is not required. If the data are submitted at the time of the manuscript, they may be consulted by the peer reviewers during the review process.
The author(s) willingness to deposit data does not affect a submission’s consideration or acceptance for publication in the journal.
Data should be made available without restriction at the time the article is published.
The data collected from registered and non-registered users of this journal falls within the scope of the standard functioning of peer-reviewed journals. It includes information that makes communication possible for the editorial process; it is used to inform readers about the authorship and editing of content; it enables collecting aggregated data on readership behaviours, as well as tracking geopolitical and social elements of scholarly communication.
This journal’s editorial team and its hosting service, the University of Alberta Libraries, use this data to guide their work in publishing and improving this journal. Data that will assist in developing this publishing platform may be shared with its developer Public Knowledge Project in an anonymized and aggregated form, with appropriate exceptions such as article metrics. The data will not be sold by this journal, the University of Alberta Libraries, or PKP nor will it be used for purposes other than those stated here. The authors published in this journal are responsible for the human subject data included in the research reported here.
This website uses Google Analytics, a service which transmits website traffic data to Google servers in the United States. Google Analytics does not identify individual users or associate your IP address with any other data held by Google. This journal uses reports provided by Google Analytics to help it understand website traffic and webpage usage, and report on such usage to funding agencies, association members, and other agencies. You can opt out of Google Analytics by installing this browser add-on.
Those involved in editing this journal seek to be compliant with industry standards for data privacy, including the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provision for “data subject rights” that include (a) breach notification; (b) right of access; (c) the right to be forgotten; (d) data portability; and (e) privacy by design. The GDPR also allows for the recognition of “the public interest in the availability of the data,” which has a particular saliency for those involved in maintaining, with the greatest integrity possible, the public record of scholarly publishing.
EBLIP is a peer reviewed, open access journal published quarterly by the University of Alberta Learning Services. EBLIP publishes original research and commentary on the topic of evidence based library and information practice, as well as reviews of previously published research (evidence summaries) on a wide number of topics.